AMERICAN RIGHTS GUARDIAN UPDATE
US FlagBald EagleVOLUME 8 NUMBER 1 W 2004Bald EagleWis Flag
The Only Printed Voice of Opposition to Federal Government Indian Policy in Wisconsin.
Published by Protect Americans' Rights & Resources to maintain an informed membership.
     In previous newsletters, we touched on (S578/HR2242) which are amendments to the Homeland Security Bill. These amendments are before Congress at this time. We think that it is virtually important that this legislation be defeated. For a better understanding of this legislation, read the below summary as prepared by Elaine Willman, Chair, “Citizens Equal Rights Alliance.”
SUMMARY
     The Homeland Security Act of 2002 defines homeland in two words—“America’s homeland’”—and contemplates a seamless continuum of local law enforcement entities, including tribal law enforcement, for the purpose of protecting and defending America’s homeland. Indian lobbyists are offended that tribal governments are included among local governments in the Homeland Security Act, and view themselves as separate sovereign governments in need of protecting their “tribal homelands.”
    If Senate Bill 578/HR 2242(amendments to the Homeland Security Bill) passes, tribal governments will have the authority to create any form of government of their choosing (Sec. 2). Tribal governments will have full criminal, CMI and adjudicatory authority over ALL PERSONS who live, work, reside, visit or travel through the boundaries of an Indian reservation, including persons who do business with tribal government or tribal members (Sec. 13). Among expanded access to homeland security data, resources and funding, the bill also provides authority of tribal governments to access and intercept electronic and oral communications of citizens (Sec.12).
       The bill does NOT consider the following:    
    > 3 out of 4 American Indians do not live on Indian reservations.
    > Over 500,000 citizens who are not enrolled tribal members DO live within reservation boundaries.
    > Millions of Americans visit Indian casinos, and other Indian tourist and business facilities.
    > Thousands of American businesses “do business” with tribal governments.
    > ALL OF THESE businesses and citizens would LOSE the protections of the U.S. Constitution; and their in place municipal, county and state governments, if/as confronted by tribal personnel.
    > Over 30 years of U.S. Supreme Court rulings would be nullified, beginning with the Oliphant (1978) case denying tribes criminal authority over nonmembers. The third branch of American government, the U.S. Supreme court, would be effectively neutralized, thereafter having limited or no effect upon Indian tribes.
    > The Homeland Security Act was NEVER, nor should it be, intended to expand tribal sovereignty.
    > “America’s Homeland” already includes Indian reservations and should not be segmented out, causing a disruption of the collaborative and seamless partnerships of local law enforcement agencies.
    Every state, county and municipal elected official and law enforcement officer should pay close attention to the effect of this bill, should it pass. At risk are clear transfers of authority, transfers of jurisdiction and potential shifts in funds for urgently needed tasks required under the Homeland Security Act of 2002. A recommended position: S1578IH.R. 2242 should be withdrawn in it’s entirely.
The following articles will provide much more insight on the dangers of (S578/HR2242).
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§

SENATE FILE 578:
A GOAL SO CONSTITUTIONALLY INDEFENSIBLE THAT SENATOR INOUYE NOW CLAIMS IT'S NOT TRUE
(Taken From Reservations Report and written by Randy V. Thompson)
    On February 24, 2003, Senator Daniel Inouye (D. Hawaii) stated that he would introduce a bill on Homeland Security with the goal of overturning recent Supreme Court rulings by recognizing that tribes have primary law enforcement duties on their lands.
    Sen. Inouye stated that the bill would "recognize [tribal] powers and responsibilities as sovereign governments" and
strengthen the position of tribal governments and their status. "Least of all, you should be as sovereign as any state in the
union." Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R. Colo.) Stated that this legislation was part of a larger tribal sovereignty initiative
to overturn Nevada v. Hicks and Atkinson v. Shirley, among other Supreme Court decisions. The Homeland Security
Amendment in Senate File 578 was the first step in the so-called "Hicks Fix" that would give tribal governments civil, criminal
and taxing authority over U. S. citizens who were not members of the tribe.
    What a difference six months makes. On July 30, 2003, the hearings on Senate File 578 commenced, and Sen. Inouye
presented a statement disclaiming any intent to strip U. S. citizens of their constitutional protections. Instead, Sen. Inouye
claimed that Senate File 578 was really very narrow, only applying if a person were to engage in an act of terrorism. This only
allowed a tribal police officer to hold the individual until they could be turned over to a federal authority, for violating federal
law and subject to prosecution in federal court - not tribal court.
    Really? First of all, if that was the only goal of Senate File 578, let me suggest that it can be replaced by one sentence:
"Tribal law enforcement can detain individuals suspected of participating in terrorist acts in violation of federal law who shall
be turned over to state or federal authorities at the earliest possible opportunity." That of course is not the goal of Senate File
578, as Sen. Inouye made clear in his February statements, supported by Sen. Campbell. Instead, Senate File 578 is the
opening salvo in the "Hicks Fix".
    Sen. Inouye's July statement even contradicts itself. While the July statement claims that if a person was to engage in an
act of terrorism, they would violate federal law and would be subject to prosecution in federal court not tribal court, the
statement also describes the intent of Senate File 578 for Homeland Security purposes as follows: "Congress affirms and
declares that the inherent sovereign authority of an Indian tribal government includes the authority to enforce and adjudicate
violations of applicable criminal, civil, and regulatory laws committed by any person on land under the jurisdiction of the Indian
tribal government." Why is the language "adjudicate" in that sentence if it only applies to federal terrorism law to be tried in
federal court? Why is the term "civil and regulatory laws" included if it is only federal criminal law?
    The fact of the matter is that this bill is a broad effort to state a "Congressional intent" that is designed to overturn numerous
Supreme Court decisions including Nevada v. Hicks, Atkinson v. Shirley, United States v. Montana, State v. A-1
Contractors, Inc., and Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe. This bill is an effort to begin the process of subjecting the 400,000 people who live within present and former reservations to tribal criminal, civil and taxing jurisdiction, even on land that those individuals own, by a government in which the individuals cannot participate. The result of the tribal sovereignty initiative ("Hick's Fix") will be a broad, sweeping usurpation of the constitutional rights of these 400,000 United States citizens, and
potentially the millions more who travel through Indian reservations or former reservation lands.
    There is a misunderstanding that Indian reservations are unique, homogeneous enclaves of members of a single Indian
tribe. In fact, because of federal policies that lasted for fifty years from 1880 to 1930, millions of acres of land were
transferred to private land ownership by hundreds of thousands of United States citizens. The population of Indian
reservations today is generally about 50/50 between Indians and non-Indians. In many states the majority of citizens living on
present or former reservation lands are not Indian and not members of that tribe. Because Senate File 578 would allow tribal
government to be constituted anyway it wants, tribal government need not be democratic, there need not be an independent
judiciary, and the mandates of the Bill of Rights would not apply.
    It is therefore not surprising that Sen. Inouye is attempting to claim that those opposing Senate File 578 are misconstruing
Senate File 578. Even Sen. Inouye can no longer support the true purpose of this bill, as he and Sen. Campbell did before
the National Congress of American Indians in February. No one is calling tribal governments or the Indian people terrorists.
That is outrageous. What thoughtful opponents of Senate File 578 are stating, however, is that this is the first step in the effort
to elevate tribal governments to a status of sovereignty equal to that of states, and to subject individuals who are not members
of that government to the civil, criminal and taxing authorities of tribal government, without the protections of the United States
Constitution.
    Fundamentally, United States citizens cannot be subject to jurisdiction by a government in which they cannot participate by
voting and holding elective office. This concept is so fundamental it underlies the Declaration of Independence, as well as
the United States Constitution and the Constitutions of every state. Despite the platitudes regarding the goal of recognizing
"inherent tribal sovereignty" the reality is that this bill would be used to overturn numerous Supreme Court decisions and could
strip United States citizens of the protection of the U. S. Constitution. Rather than deny both the language and the goals of
Senate File 578, since Sen. Inouye can no longer publicly support its true goal, he should do the honorable thing and
withdraw support for Senate File 578. This bill means exactly what Senators Inouye and Campbell said it meant in February,
2003. Truth, unfortunately, appears to be a victim in the war on terrorism in Senate File 578.
    If Sen. Inouye believes that he can defend this bill, he should invite the critics of the legislation to testify before the Senate.
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
WHAT’S WRONG ABOUT THIS STORY?
    Two women from the Seneca Nation of Indians face prison terms next month when they will be sentenced in federal court in Detroit for a racketeering scheme that supplied untaxed cigarettes to Michigan convenience stores. One of their codefendants
admitted sending part of his profits to the Islamic terrorist group Hezbollah. …They were part of a ring of 11 people indicted
last February as a result of a cigarette smuggling investigation by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives and the FBI.” Actually, there is nothing wrong about the story, written by Michael Beebe in the Buffalo News
November 12th and his account contained a lot more information, much of it referring back to articles written last February
when the illicit cigarette operation and links to Middle East terrorism were first publicized by the Buffalo newspaper and
others, and mentioned at the time by Reservation Report. What is wrong is that the National Congress of American Indians
(NCAI) and top Senators such as Daniel Inouye (D-HI) and Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO), are seemingly unfazed by
such matters nine months later, and continue to push their sponsorship of S. 578 (House bill H.R.2242) to grant Indian
reservations and tribal leaders a “sovereign” role as entities entrusted with full participation in carrying out the federal
Homeland Security Act in the war on terrorism.
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
INDIAN RESERVATIONS ON U.S. BORDER ARE DRUG PIPELINE
   That’s the information from Tom Heffelfinger, U.S. Attorney (Minneapolis) who is a key source for the Department of Homeland Security and a recent witness before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "Reservations are serving as a (drug) pipeline to…cities like Chicago, New York, Miami and Seattle. The smugglers have found the path of least resistance," says a police chief of a town near a reservation.
    "They take advantage of it every day." The daily convoys of drug shipments from Mexico has led state and federal officials to see Indian lands as dangerous gaps in America's Homeland Security plan. Officials say drug smugglers set up shop on
reservations by bribing members of the tribe. The same problems are seen on the Canadian border as the Mexican border. In
Montana, a federal probe found two policemen of the Blackfeet Nation working for drug traffickers. Early this year, the BIA
took over the tribe's police department.
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
IF INDIAN TRIBES ARE SOVEREIGN?
(By J.E. Schumacher)
    Another big push is on by the Indian Lobby, tribal governments and sundry supporters to get us all to admit and acknowledge that Indian tribes are sovereign entities, at least equal to the State’s of the Union. At least, that’s what one of our own United States senators, Daniel Inouye, wants us to accept.
    Now comes a new spin on tribal sovereignty. The Indian Lobby now prefers the term, “inherent tribal sovereignty.” The
definition of inherent is, “established as an essential part of something." Now, what is the Indian Lobby trying to tell us? That,
actually, Indian tribes were sovereign from time immemorial, but that the rest of us just didn’t know it? Who knows?
Then we have the statement of Mr. Robert T. Anderson, Associate Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs, Department of
Interior, who tells the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs that, “From the first days of our Republic, the United States
has recognized Indian tribes as governments... One thing they all have in common is the sovereignty that is inherent (see, there’s that word inherent, again) regardless of size or type of organization.”
    This statement is patently offensive and inaccurate. So. Let’s go back into the real history of the United States government and search for the truth of (or if) our government recognized tribal sovereignty.
    Sorry, but we must ask questions here. Ready?
    1… If Indian tribes are sovereign, why did our Declaration of Independence state, “He has excited domestic insurrections
amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule
of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
    2… If Indian tribes are sovereign, why did the Articles of Confederation (adopted August 8, 1778) specifically state, “The
U.S. Congress assembled shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians not members of any state….
    3... If Indian tribes are sovereign, why did the United States government, by Act of Congress in 1871, specifically state,
“Provided, that hereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or
recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty.”?
    4... If Indian tribes are sovereign, why does the U.S. Constitution only allow Congress to regulate commerce with Indian tribes, and nothing more?
    5... If Indian tribes are sovereign, why didn’t the U.S. Congress declare war on all these tribes it was allegedly attempting to “exterminate?”
    6... If Indian tribes are sovereign, why does the Indian Reorganization Act (1934) repeatedly refer to tribal governments as
“corporations?” Another question: Is the Indian Reorganization Act actually the genesis of the modernday tribal demands for
sovereignty? Realize, as you ponder this question, that this Act was also the genesis of Indian tribal governments, instituted by
the U. S. Congress.
    7... If Indian tribes are sovereign, why have over 170 years of U.S. Supreme Court decisions refuted that same bizarre and
mythical theory or tribal sovereignty that tribal governments constantly demand?
    8… If Indian tribes are sovereign, why is all Indian tribal land (in trust status) controlled by the United States government?
    9... If Indian tribes are sovereign, why aren’t there 500+ American Indian embassies conducting business with the United
States?
    10... If Indian tribes are sovereign, why, instead, is there a shadow government within the
United States, namely the Bureau of Indian Affairs, manned predominately by Indians who are setting United States policy, in
furtherance of their own interests?
    We could go on, but end of questions. Who’s right? You decide.
    However, keep in mind, that while Indian tribes are not sovereign entities, they are autonomous. This means they have the
power (Congressionally granted) to control their own members and only within the borders of their own reservations. But this
isn’t good enough. They want to control all of us, within and without their borders, and without the protections guaranteed us
under our own Constitution and Bill of Rights.
    Don’t believe it? Just Ask Senator Daniel Inouye and he’ll set you straight.
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Issue Item
    Ethics complaints against Senators Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (D-CO), Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA), were submitted in mid-September to the attention of Noel Hillman, Chief of the Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Department of Justice and to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. The complaints allege “the above-named Senators have conspired to deny United Property Owners (UPO),” Citizens Equal Rights Alliance (CERA) and a number of local organizations, the “right to be heard in opposition to Senate Bill 578.” The complaints were detailed in letters from Barbara Lindsay, Executive Director of UPO, on behalf of UPO’s Board of Directors and from Elaine Willman as President of CERA. Appeals to testify in opposition to S. 578, by these and other organizations critical of the Senate Bill to extend statehood powers under the Homeland Security Act to Indian tribes on their reservations, were refused except to US
Attorney Thomas Heffelfinger.
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Blowing Off Steam
(By Bob Manzke)
       Hi folks, the following letter was sent to our Wisconsin Delegation in Washington DC:
    While I was ringing in the New Year trying to figure out how I was going to survive another month, let alone another year,
you, one of the paragons of virtue in the House and Senate recently winked and nodded and got another pay raise of about
$4,000. This most recent increase, which took effect the first day of January, is on top of the $4,700 increase you "earned" last year, the $4,900 increase in 2002, the $3,800 increase in 2001 and the $4,600 you gave yourselves in 2000. Under the system now in place, House and Senate members automatically get a pay raise every year. The only way not to get the raise is to pass an amendment blocking it, and parliamentary hurdles make that difficult to accomplish. Up-shot: a congressional paycheck that grows by thousands of dollars a year -- with no hearings, no debate, no media coverage, no public explanations. Above all, no embarrassing votes.
    While you had your hands in Pandora’s Box up to the elbows, many of us watched the future we worked our butts off for
40 or 50 years disappear in spiraling health care cost, run away energy costs, and mainly paying for the pork you and your
fellow paragons of virtue generate.
    How can you stand the image looking back at you, when you look in the mirror? And you wonder why the people have
so much contempt for politicians.
    I would like to know what you intend to do about this sacrilegious fleecing of the struggling taxpayers that have to pick up
the tab. A response is respectfully requested.
PARR Ed Note: What do you think of the possibilities of me ever getting a response from Wisconsin’s Washington Delegation to this?
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Senator’s Position
(By Bob Manzke)
    Folks, I recently contacted my State Senator Tom Reynolds to determine his position on the super-citizen-status now enjoyed by Wisconsin’s Indian population. To Bob Manzke Executive Secretary PARR…Thank you for taking the time to e-mail me in regard to the gaming compacts Governor Doyle negotiated and signed with the various Indian Tribes in Wisconsin. I appreciate your input on this issue. In your e-mail you asked my opinion of the Chippewa Treaties and how it pertains to the current environment for gaming in the state.
    I was a vocal opponent of the new gaming compacts that were negotiated with the various tribes in Wisconsin. I saw
them as the Governor signing away Wisconsin's future for a mere pittance of what should be paid. I am in general not a
supporter of gambling, however I do realize it is part of life in the state. I supported both bills that passed the Legislature to
give the Legislature the authority to approve the gaming compacts.
    In addition to my support of these bills I co-authored a letter with State Representative Carol Owens (R- Oshkosh) that
asked President Bush to direct the Bureau of Indian Affairs to reject the Potawatomi and any other compacts approved by the Governor. I have attached a copy of that letter and the press release we sent out in conjunction with it.
Finally, I support the law-suit that is currently before the State Supreme Court that calls into question the Governor's
authority to negotiate compacts in perpetuity without Legislative approval. If this lawsuit is successful the compacts may have
to be renegotiated and then approved by the Legislature.
    I hope this has answered any questions that you and PARR have of me on this issue. If I can be of further assistance or if
you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Tom Reynolds State Senator Fifth Senate
District.
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Delayed For Proper Spin
(By Greg Graunke)
    Hi Folks, after waiting since last spring for a reply to my inquiry as to the disposition of the incident described below, this came at the end of November. You’re right; I don’t believe it either! Just try pleading ignorance to the law, and see how many years it gets you. And we are told that these people are competent to manage the muskie ice spearing, Dear Mr. Graunke:
I am sorry that you did not receive this information in a more timely manner. The following information was included in a
letter on September 10, 2003. Apparently you did not receive it.
    The additional tribal harvest of walleyes from Alder and Little Star Lakes this spring was an unfortunate event and all
parties involved recognized its seriousness. As stated in the press release which you have apparently seen, the overharvest
was due to an accounting error. The tribal members were issued a permit to harvest fish on each of these lakes although the
tribal quotas had already been harvested. Tribal members were not aware of the over harvest at that time. As the additional
harvest was the result of an accounting error and not the fault of the individual tribal members, they were not issued a citation.
However, in general, if any tribal members harvest a greater number of fish than allowed by their permit (intentionally or
un-intentionally) the fish are confiscated and they are issued a citation similar to one that would be issued to a recreational
angler who had broken a fishing regulation.
    The additional harvest required the immediate closure of these to lakes to further harvest in order to protect the walleye
populations. As such, the daily bag limits for walleye have been 0 in Alder and Little Star lakes since May 30, 2003. The tracking system for issuing permits has been changed in order to prevent this from occurring again.
Sincerely, Andrew Fayram Interim Treaty Fisheries Coordinator.
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
LET'S HELP THE INDIANS - VOTE DEMOCRAT
(JE. Schumacher)
    Coordinating Editor John Fulton Lewis of RESERVATION Report provides us with the following:
Six Democratic Presidential candidates addressed the November annual conference of the National Congress of
American Indians (NCAI). If the six were elected as one, and kept their pledges to NCAI, a significant portion of government
authority over the citizens of the United States would be turned over to Indian tribal governments by Inauguration Day,
2OO5.. Thanks to award-winning reporter Leslie Linthicum, we are privileged to know what these guys are up to.
General Wesley Clark (Ret.) is persuaded that the European colonists who settled in James-town, Plymouth and ultimately
the entire East Coast, did so by carrying out genocide against Indians. General Clark, would you please furnish documented
evidence of an official, applied policy of genocide by Colonials against Indians? By the way, General, did not some of these
genocidal fanatics participate in the first Thanksgiving, at which Indians were also in attendance?
    Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will, if elected, deliver a massive White House apology for all the broken U.S. and colonial
era treaties that were signed with tribes, evidently including even treaties broken by Indians. Mr. Kucinich, why would you, as our President, apologize massively for We The People, for broken Colonial era treaties, when in fact, the United States government didn't even exist?! And why would you issue a massive apology in our name for treaties broken by the Indians, themselves? One would think that the Indians should apologize for this, not us. But..... Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) will settle up all of the mishandled funds the federal government has collected since the late 19th century, which allegedly were never properly paid to tribal members (latest of many estimates: $13-billion). Now, Mr. Lieberman, as a professional politician, surely you know that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is responsible for said funds; and surely you know that the officials of the BIA are, for the most part, Indian tribal members. Good idea, Mr. Lieberman, let's settle up these mishandled funds. Now you know where to start!
    Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) would greatly inflate appropriations for Indian health care. Good idea, Mr. Kerry I am now
declaring, officially, of course, that I am, indeed, a NATIVE AMERICAN. You may send my slice of the greatly inflated
health care appropriation pie to me under my newly adopted native American name, Stik-it-tu-ya.
    Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO) would appoint American Indians to federal judgeships. Uh-oh, problem ahead. Mr.
Gephardt, you haven't told us if you were referring to Indian tribal judges, or just any Indian. It might not be a good idea to
appoint tribal judges to the federal bench. You see, tribal judges are very unaccustomed to following the precepts laid down
in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Better to go with any Indian.
    Last, but not least, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean would install Indians in the White House office of
intergovernmental relations to reinforce Indian sovereign/apartheid claims. Mr. Dean, did you get a little confused here, putting
the words sovereignty and apartheid together? With regard to Indian tribal sovereignty, it is pure and simple, a myth. They
have the power (granted by the United States government) to rule over their own members on their own reservations. That,
sir, is more aptly defined as autonomy, not sovereignty. Apartheid is another matter. It does exist with respect to American
Indians. For proof of this, I refer you to the afore-mentioned Indian reservations. But, Mr. Dean, why do you need Indians in
the White House to end Indian apartheid in this country? Can't you and the federal government do this, yourselves? You don't
really want to, do you?
    Well, there you have it, folks. The Democratic Presidential aspirants have just told us what they would do for us (or is it
do to us?).
    The reason for writing this piece is not just to point out the idiocy of the above-quoted statements. There are two other
questions to be asked. Question #1 - Why would the Democratic Presidential aspirants make such ludicrous statements?
Question #2 - Could it just be that said aspirants are salivating at the fact that their statements may transfer goodly sums of
Indian Tribal gambling money into their own Democratic campaign coffers?
    You decide. I just write this stuff. Endnote: Will the reader please take his trusty magic marker and ink out the headline
of this piece? Thank you.
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
THINK ABOUT THIS
(By , Greg Graunke)
A. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
B. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
C. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (US Dept. of Health &Human Services)
Then think about this:
A. The number of gun owners in the US is 80, 000,000.
B. The number of accidental gun deaths per year is 1,506.
C. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner 0.0000 188. Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more
dangerous than gun owners.
    FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand. As a public health
measure, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical attention.
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Illegal Use of Gambling Money
(By JE Schumacher)
    A few weeks ago we sent the following to our state delegation in Washington, all the legislators in Madison, and several media outlets:
    Protect American Rights & Resources (PARR) has grave concerns regarding the legality of Indian tribal gambling monies
being conferred to United States political campaign coffers.
    The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, enacted in 1988, establishes the jurisdictional frame-work that, at the moment,
governs Indian gambling. Tribal Gaming Ordinances, 2 U.S.C... 2710 (SEC. 11) addresses the use of net revenues from
gaming and states that there are only five legitimate uses for tribal gambling revenues, to wit:
(1) Net revenues from any tribal gaming are not to be used for purposes other than ---
(2) to fund tribal government operations or programs;
(3) to provide for the general welfare of the Indian tribes and its members;
(4) to promote tribal economic development;
(5) to donate to charitable organizations, or
(6) to help fund operations of local government agencies;
    It would appear from the above-mentioned legislation that Indian tribal money contributions to political campaigns are
unlawful.
    Furthermore, certain politicians and the Indian Lobby are constantly telling us that Indian tribes are sovereign nations. In
fact, Sen. Daniel Inouye, in an address to the National Congress of American Indians, stated bluntly, "Least of all, you (Indian
Tribes) should be as sovereign as any state in the Union.” Additionally, if Senate Bill 578 - Amendment to the Homeland
Security Bill, becomes federal law, Indian tribal sovereignty would again be established, despite the numerous US. Supreme
Court decisions to the contrary.
    Federal law also establishes that foreign nations, state, county and local governments cannot donate to political campaigns.
The question now arises, if Indian tribes are sovereign nations, how can they legally donate to United States political
campaigns? PARR, therefore, requests that you provide your views on the legality, based on the abovementioned federal
law, of Indian tribal gambling monies being given to political campaign coffers.
    We also request that you furnish your views on the constitutionality of Senate Bill 578, which in essence puts American
citizens under the rule of Indian tribal courts/governments with-out the protections afforded them under their own Constitution
and Bill of Rights.
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Dear Congressman Green
(By JE Schumacher)
       Dear Representative Green:
    Protect Americans' Rights & Resources (PARR) has been apprised of a letter you recently sent to one of your constituents
(also a PARR member). You addressed his concerns regarding the irregularities of Indian tribal monies to political campaign
coffers vis-à-vis the McCain Feingold campaign finance reform bill.
    You stated that their status as sovereign nations allow Indian tribes to circumvent rules that prevent other organizations, like
businesses, from making direct contributions. You also stated that you have, been trying unsuccessfully for years to close this
loophole.
    PARR thinks this loophole should be fairly easy to close. Assuming that your assertion of tribal sovereignty is correct, why
doesn't Congress just enforce existing United States law that prohibits other sovereign nations from contributing to U.S.
political campaigns?
    Or would this solution prevent the Indian Lobby and Indian tribal governments from having their cake and eating it, too, as
is usually the case?
    PARR respectfully requests a timely response at your earliest convenience. We think that your input on this important
matter should be conveyed to our membership.
Yours truly, J. E, Schumacher
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
THE FALL OF THE ATHENIAN REPUBLIC...
    At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler - a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinborough - had this to say about “The Fall of the Athenian Republic” some 2,000 years prior:
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.
    “The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During
those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith ; From
spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From
complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
    Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts
concerning the most recent Presidential election:
    Population of counties won by: Gore 127 million; Bush 143 million; Square miles of land won by: Gore 580,000; Bush
2,427,000; States won by: Gore 19; Bush 29; Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore 13.2; Bush 2.1. Professor Olson adds, “In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore’s territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare...” Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the “apathy” and the “complacency” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase. And, to add to the mix, the last gasp of any country has been when marriage and the family have taken a back seat to other sexual interests  as witness Rome - one of the greatest and most wide spread governments. Another sign of the end is the lack of true spiritual interest where the God of the Bible and His ways are replaced by man’s thinking and his own way. The bell is tolling loud and clear and it tolls for America!!!!!
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Bad Smell of Gambling
(By Bob Manzke Taken in Part From an Article in the Milwaukee Journal)
    Folks, here in Wisconsin it seems that the airwaves are inundated with Indian Casino ads. Every one claiming that you will need a wheelbarrow to carry away your winnings. They claim that their casino is the place to come to obtain the money necessary to fix any crisis. If you need Christmas money come to “X” casino and your problems are over. Can’t pay your taxes—your solution is right here at our casino. If you read between the lines the ads also say, “be sure and bring the deed to the farm.”
    No matter how much white-wash is smeared on this gambling endeavor to make it appear noble, it still looks like and
smells like you know what. Back when I was a youngster, the sign off commentary of the radio show, “The Shadow” was,
“The weed of crime bears bitter fruit.” Today, “The weed of gambling bears bitter fruit” for many people. (Read on)----
More of them are women who have led law-abiding lives. A 64-year-old went to prison and two more are sure to follow
her, the threesome have something else in common. After leading law-abiding lives, they have been accused of stealing
hundreds of thousands of dollars from their employers and gambling it away. And they are representative of a growing trend:
people stealing from the churches, non-profit groups and benevolent organizations for which they work to feed their gambling
habits. More and more are women.
    "I don't think the majority of compulsive gamblers are criminals," says Rose Gruber, who, as executive director of the
Wisconsin Council on Problem Gambling, hears about as much as anyone in Wisconsin when it comes to the subject. "Most
of the problem gamblers have never been in the court system. "What is more typical is having never been in trouble before for a
day in their lives."
    Three in the news recently were real attention-getters: A 38 year old was charged in Milwaukee with embezzling
$518,000 from Gesu Church, where she was the bookkeeper and spending "thousands and thousands" of it at Potawatomi
Bingo Casino. Another gal, 38, also a former bookkeeper, has been accused in Waukesha of stealing more than $600,000
from her former employer during the same period. She and her husband spent more than $420,000 at the casino, the
criminal complaint says. The 64 year old, a former Goodwill Industries controller, was sentenced in Oshkosh to five years in prison for stealing more than $500,000 from the charity for the disabled and spending much of it at casinos.
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
ISSUE ITEM
    Something funny going on in Indian Country. In years past, the agenda of the Indian Lobby was to drag as many Indians as
possible onto the reservation and enroll them as tribal members. Why? Because the more enrolled members, the more the
tribal governments can collect from the cash cow of American government entitlement programs. All this, of course, at the
same time the Indian Lobby is fighting for recognition as independent sovereign nationhood.
    Now, something different is occurring. Indian tribal governments are bringing back the old “tribal law of banishment" to
expel unwanted tribal members. One reason for banishment could be to quell political dissent within the tribe; another could be criminality. But, could another reason be that the less enrolled tribal memberships, the bigger the slice of the casino gambling
profits pie? Just wondering.
    Where are these tribal members being banished to? Why, into the real world, where the rest of us (and 80% of Indians)
already live!
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Memo to Wisconsin Governor James Doyle
    At this writing, your veto of the carrying concealed Weapon legislation is in danger of being overridden.
    All your hackneyed excuses for opposing this legislation have been proven false, and you know it. Just check the results of concealed carry laws enacted by almost every other (46) state of the Union.
    While you may have had a number of representatives from various police organizations clapping in support of your veto
at your State of the State address, the simple fact remains: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that the police
have no duty or responsibility to protect us. Their duty is to enforce the law.
    With this in mind, the question to you is this: What gives you and/or your liberal, like-minded comrades-in-arms (no pun
intended) the right to dictate to anyone that he/she, by law, shall have no right of self-defense from criminal degenerates?
A reply is respectfully requested at your earliest convenience. Yours truly,
J,E, Schumacher
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Issue Item
    That bubba sure does get around! Yesterday, I was walking down Main Street and I saw my buddy Bubba driving a Jeep!!
Bubba pulled up to me with a wide grin. I asked, "Bubba, where'd you get that Jeep?"
    "Bobby Sue gave it to me" Bubba replied. In amazement, I asked, "She gave it to you? I knew she was interested in you,
but a Jeep?!!"
    "Well, let me tell ya' what happened...We was driving out on Route 33... and, in the middle of nowhere ...Bobby Sue
pulled off the road, put the Jeep in 4-wheel drive, and headed into the woods. She parked the Jeep, got out, threw off all her
clothes and said 'Bubba, take whatever you want'.
    “So I took the Jeep!" I grinned, "Bubba, you're a smart man! Those clothes would have never fit you.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This newsletter contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of the political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues, including historical accuracy, as pertains to federal Indian policy/programs.  We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for research and educational purposes. Articles provided here without permission from the copyright owner are provided for the purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws. This material may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use". 

PAGE TOP

Thanks

Back Issue